Computer-related warrants led to his conviction in 2013 on child pornography charges

Jason Hachmeister was convicted of murder in 2015. The victim, Sheila Hachmeister, was his mother. He was convicted of 105 counts of child pornography possession in 2013, based on images found on his computer, and sentenced to 86 months’ prison. The murder conviction brought a concurrent life sentence. (File photo/The Capital-Journal)

Seizing a Topeka man’s computer in the course of a murder investigation defied common sense, his attorney argued Tuesday morning before the Kansas Supreme Court — the latest development in a 2011 case that involved more than 100 counts of child exploitation.

Gerald Wells, attorney for Jason Hachmeister, questioned a search warrant that allowed detectives to investigate not only the murder victim’s computer, but also his client’s.

Shawnee County assistant district attorney Jodi Litfin argued the confiscation and searches were handled appropriately and can’t be appealed because of the outcome of previous motions to suppress related evidence.

Hachmeister was convicted in 2015 of murdering his mother, Sheila Hachmeister. He was convicted of 105 counts of child pornography possession in 2013, based on images found on his computer, and sentenced to 86 months in prison. The murder conviction brought a concurrent life sentence.

The Kansas Supreme Court is considering only the child pornography case.

Hachmeister’s challenge includes multiple arguments. Key among them is the idea an initial search warrant went too far by allowing investigators to take his computer along with his mother’s.

The computer search was prompted by Hachmeister’s statement to law enforcement that his mother had been in contact with men online before being slain.

Wells argued this would motivate seizing the victim’s computer, to investigate the communications with the two men, but it didn’t justify taking Hachmeister’s computer, too.

Supreme Court justices peppered Wells with skeptical questions.

“Why would a warrant require specificity?” justice Eric Rosen asked. “Sheila Hachmeister had access to the computer that was seized.”

The state argues it had probable cause to seize multiple computers because it wasn’t clear who owned or had access to which computer. It says the series of warrants related to the case were proper.

“The items listed to be seized were stated with sufficient particularity,” Litfin told the seven justices.

Separately, Hachmeister’s attorneys argue the district court violated his rights by deciding in the sentencing phase that some of the pornographic images depicted children under the age of 14. Based on this, the court required that he be registered for life as a sex offender.

His attorneys argue the allegation about the age of the children wasn’t presented at trial.

“The state must include any fact that increases the maximum penalty a defendant may receive in the charging document, put it before a jury, and prove it beyond a reasonable doubt,” his appeal reads.

The state argues that, based on previous cases, this doesn’t apply to registering someone as a sex offender, because such registration isn’t part of the convicted person’s penalty.

Hachmeister’s arguments against the child pornography convictions lost at the Kansas Court of Appeals level.